Lanier v. Lee

Decision Date27 April 1965
Docket NumberNos. 41123,No. 3,41124,s. 41123,3
Citation143 S.E.2d 487,111 Ga.App. 876
PartiesRenie E. LANIER et al. v. J. D. LEE, Sr. Renie E. LANIER et al. v. Jo Ann Lee
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

1. The objection to evidence complained of in ground 4 of the motion for new trial was too general to present any question for consideration.

2. It was prejudicial error to admit over objection evidence bearing no reasonable relation to the issues made by the pleadings.

3. Conduct of plaintiffs' attorneys shown in grounds 7 and 8 was cause for mistrial on both occasions. Whether the court erred in denying the motions for mistrial is not decided as the court rebuked counsel in the presence of the jury in each instance and the incidents are not likely to recur in the new trial required upon another ground.

The plaintiffs in these cases are husband and wife. In one case the plaintiff wife sued defendants to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her in an automobile collision. In the other the plaintiff husband sued defendants to recover for loss of his wife's services, for medical expenses and for property damage to his car, which the wife was operating when the collision occurred. Both cases, which were consolidated for trial, resulted in verdicts and judgments for plaintiffs.

Defendants except to the judgments for the trial court denying their amended motions for new trial, which assign error upon the same grounds in both cases.

Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, James H. Moore, Atlanta, Albert B. Wallace, Jonesboro, for plaintiffs in error.

Guy R. Dunn, Kemp & Watson, Hapeville, John L. Watson, Jr., Jonesboro, for defendants in error.

BELL, Presiding Judge.

1. Special ground 4 objects to the admission of certain testimony and presents the following contentions: 'That the same was irrelevant and immaterial and not pertinent to any issues involved in this case, and under the evidence produced so far, too general and too vague to be a proper question for this witness and for presentation to the jury.' This objection is itself too general and too vague to present anything for consideration. Greyhound Corp. v. Clough, 211 Ga. 574(2), 87 S.E.2d 387; Isley v. Little, 219 Ga. 23, 28(7), 131 S.E.2d 623; McBride v. Johns, 73 Ga.App. 444, 445(2), 36 S.E.2d 822; George v. Riley, 106 Ga.App. 550(2), 127 S.E.2d 821. See Green, Ga.Law of Evidence (1957 Ed.) 35 § 12.

2. Ground 5 assigns error upon admission of the following testimony of the wife: Question: 'In your opinion, in your own honest opinion only, did this accident and the injuries which you received therein have anything to do with your miscarriages?' Answer: 'Well, I feel that it is caused from the accident.' Defendants based objections to this evidence upon several grounds, one of which stated in substance that the question propounded called for proof not authorized under the pleadings.

The wife's amended petition alleged 'that her entire left side was bruised and she suffered bruises and injuries to the ribs located on the left side of the torso; that she received a dislocated vertebra in the back of her neck * * * that as a direct result of said collision she has become extremely nervous * * * and will always be subjected to severe headaches which have been occurring since the date of the accident.' None of the plaintiff's pleadings, either those of the wife or those of the husband, charged that the collision caused the wife to suffer miscarriages.

Other evidence showed that the wife had in fact had two miscarriages after the collision. Evidence as to the occurrence of the miscarriages shed light upon the pain and suffering claimed and was admissible for that purpose. Southern Bell Telephone Co. v. Lynch, 95 Ga. 529(2), 20 S.E. 500. However, evidence that the injuries sustained in the accident caused the miscarriages, would be relevant only if the action sought to recover damages for the miscarriages as injuries received in the collision.

'The evidence must relate to the questions being tried by the jury and bear upon them either directly or indirectly. Irrelevant matter should be excluded.' Code § 38-201; Thomas v. State, 95 Ga.App. 699, 707, 99 S.E.2d 242. It is error to admit over objection evidence which bears no reasonable relation to the issues made by the pleadings. Bower v. Douglass, 25 Ga. 714, 716(2); Peaglar v. Davis, 143 Ga. 11, 16(5), 84 S.E. 59; McGriff v. McGriff, 154 Ga. 560, 567(3), 115 S.E. 21; Hawkins v. Hodges, 213 Ga. 837, 841(3), 102 S.E.2d 16; Reeves v. Tankersley, 89 Ga.App. 797 798 (2), 81 S.E.2d 209. As the evidence complained of placed before the jury for its consideration matter tending only to seek damages for additional injuries not averred in the petition, it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Southeast Transport Corp. v. Hogan Livestock Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • January 7, 1975
    ...202 Ga. 274(4), 42 S.E.2d 744; Harper Warehouse, Inc. v. Henry Chanin Corp., 102 Ga.App. 489, 493, 116 S.E.2d 641; Lanier v. Lee, 111 Ga.App. 876, 878, 143 S.E.2d 487; Black v. New Holland Baptist Church, 122 Ga.App. 608, 609, 178 S.E.2d 'These particular remarks by plaintiff's counsel were......
  • Laughridge v. Moss
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • September 10, 1982
    ...question for decision by this court. See generally Perkins v. Edwards, 228 Ga. 470, 473(4), 186 S.E.2d 109 (1971); Lanier v. Lee, 111 Ga.App. 876(1), 143 S.E.2d 487 (1965). 8. Remaining enumerations of error not otherwise specifically addressed have been considered and found not to present ......
  • Smith v. Varner, 48669
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • December 4, 1973
    ...prejudiced their rights; and further, the objection was too vague and too general to present anything for consideration. Lanier v. Lee, 111 Ga.App 876, 143 S.E.2d 487; Central Georgia Transmission Co. v. Storer, 17 Ga.App. 55(1), 85 S.E. 498. This amended ground of the motion for new trial ......
  • Continental Cas. Co. v. Wilson-Avery, Inc., WILSON-AVER
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • May 3, 1967
    ...Hart, 95 Ga.App. 810, 816, 99 S.E.2d 302; Travelers Indem. Co. v. Wilkes County, 102 Ga.App. 362, 365, 116 S.E.2d 314; Lanier v. Lee, 111 Ga.App. 876, 878, 143 S.E.2d 487. This court will not interfere with the trial court's discretion unless it can be shown that that discretion was manifes......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT